am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

[gwynplaine]

No, Joker = Bin Laden in your mind. I say that as a Batman fan who is perplexed why you would think Batman tracking villains using tech is something new. Batman tracking the Joker's whereabouts is something taken straight from the comics. As if you've never heard of Batman using tracking technology to locate criminals.



"Tell your men they work for me now. This my city"

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle Gotham's soul in a fist fight with you. Nooooo, you need an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey"

His plan was to take over the Gotham underworld and break Gotham's soul. Kill the city's hope. All from the comics, too.



That's your loss. It's ten times more valid than say the Joker being able to announce on public TV to Commissioner Gordon, the Mayor, Harvey Dent and the rest of Gotham that he'll be at the parade at midnight and not have one single Cop waiting to arrest him when he gets there.

Now that's flawed writing.



That should be obvious. " See their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. I'll show ya. When the chips are down these civilized people they'll eat each other".



It's been done so many times that it's become one.



As I said to you, that's just your false perception of it. Batman's been tracking criminals with tracking technology for decades. Why is him using it to find Joker suddenly a Patriot Act thing?



That's right, he didn't. Hence why I challenge you to show where I said Joker's physical appearance was based on Batman #1. I never did. You're the one who made the claim Nicholson's was.

I'm still waiting to see your list of exclusive Batman #1 influences.



That's nothing to do with it. The point, which you are dodging is that it was a one off campy gimmick like a million other silly one off gimmicks they did back in those campy comic book days.



Which he never mentioned. Not once.



No, he didn't. Quote me the dialogue where he said that.



Exactly.



I get it more than you do apparently.

"Uh oh, he don't look happy. He's been using brand X. But with this new improved Joker brand I get a grin again and again"

"If you want order in Gotham, Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in. Every day he doesn't people will die. Starting tonight. I'm a man of my word. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

"Tonight I will kill Henry Claridge. The Joker has spoken"

Who's quote looks out of place? Yep Nicholson's.



Yes, if you're making a claim it was influenced by Batman #1. Holding up a Joker card is not from Batman #1, but leaving them at the scenes of crimes and on victim's bodies etc is from Batman #1.



Costume wise, no. Facially yes, minus the perma grin. But as I already said I never once claimed any visual appearance was based off Batman #1. You did with Nicholson. You're wrong.



Playing the Bob Kane card again. Bob Kane's word is worth less than nothing. The man was a plagiarist who stole all the creative credit from Bill Finger. Google this if you doubt me. It's infamous. It's actually called 'The haunting of Robert Kane' because it's hung over him like a dark cloud for years.

You quote him like he was some great authority on what's good. If you want to think that way then you must agree with him that Val Kilmer was the best Batman. Better than Keaton.



You know this how? Show me proof please.



How about because that was the standard Joker card symbol in the comics. Batman has one hanging in his Batcave. It's even in The Killing Joke, too.



Joker's motives towards Vicki are made clear as crystal:

Bob: "She's dating some guy named Wayne"
Joker: "She's about to trade up"

Joker: "We were having dinner. I was a man doing well with a beautiful woman"

Joker: "It's though we were made for each other. Beauty and the Beast"

He gives her flowers as a gift. He has their conversation by candlelight in the museum with romantic music playing on the radio etc. He was as subtle as a sledgehammer about his romantic intentions.



"Oh you're beautiful in an old fashioned kind of way. But I'm sure we can make you more today".

Like he did with Alicia.



Because she screwed him over by distracting him by pretending to return his affections so Batman could sneak up on him and beat the hell out of him.



No, I'm just seeing the obvious. You incredibly have somehow missed it, and you claim to be a fan of the movie, too.



Bob: "She's dating some guy named Wayne"
Joker: "She's about to trade up"

Joker: "We were having dinner. I was a man doing well with a beautiful woman"

Joker: "It's though we were made for each other. Beauty and the Beast"

He gives her flowers as a gift. He has their conversation by candlelight in the museum with romantic music playing on the radio etc. He was as subtle as a sledgehammer about his romantic intentions.

Yeah, all comic book villains treat the damsels in distress that way lol.



Name me one scene where Joker tries to seduce Rachel by giving her gifts, arranging candlelight discussions with romantic music playing, seeking her out at her apartment because he's upset she walked out on their romantic dinner with someone else, says they were made for each other etc.



And you accuse me of cherry picking. You ignore all the other romantic affections he showed towards her and focus on his two violent acts towards her.

I've explained these already.



When he follows it up with a candlelit dinner and soft romantic music playing and the plethora of other things I've already listed, it's blatantly obvious he wasn't joking.

You must be the one having the joke if you're trying to suggest otherwise.



Yes.....and?



I've never seen a supposed fan of a movie misconstrue something as straight forward as this. It's actually shocking.

I'm seriously wondering if you're just making this up now to try and save face. Do you see all other villains in comic book movies treat the hero's girl like the way Joker did with candlelit dinners, romantic music, flowers, and repetitive lines about how they belong together, how beautiful she is, how she's going to trade up dating someone for him etc?

Honestly stop talking nonsense here.



Yes, the TV show was campy so naturally they adapted all of these silly campy gimmicks from the campy comics.



Wrong. The public perception was Batman was campy, because they only knew him from the TV show. Batman fans who were reading the comics knew full well Batman wasn't a campy character, and didn't start off that way, and had not been that way since 1970.



So you say, but you neglect to mention where this big rivalry is. They share ONE proper scene together in the whole movie as Batman and Joker, and it's just Batman beating him up for killing his parents. Before this, there's just Joker trying to poison Gotham, a scheme Batman foils within 15 minutes of it being initiated without breaking a sweat. He just hands Vicki a ready made file with all the answers. That's that. Smilex scheme foiled.

Boring.

Then he finds out Joker killed his parents, goes to the parade, and swipes his balloons, then follows him up a church tower and beats him up.

I struggle to understand how you see this as an epic rivalry.



Alright, then Batman Begins was never intended to be part of a series either. It was never written or made with that intention.

Yet both Batman '89 and Begins got sequels 3 years later after their release. So what's your point?

I wanted to join in on your conversation and debate with outriddled, but your replies are so spot on and similar to what I wanted to say, that I don't really feel like I need to anymoret:

 

[OutRiddled]

Let us just say that Nicholson nailed one version of the character, and Ledger nailed another.

I get tired of long debates. Some people prefer Nicholson, others prefer Ledger. Neither is as accurate as the other. Nolan made his version. Burton made his.

It's pointless arguing about which is better or more accurate. With a character that has a 70+ year history, you'll never get accurate because there is no such thing. There are many different interpretations by different writers and artists.

 

[Hellion]

Let us just say that Nicholson nailed one version of the character, and Ledger nailed another.

I get tired of long debates. Some people prefer Nicholson, others prefer Ledger. Neither is as accurate as the other. Nolan made his version. Burton made his.

It's pointless arguing about which is better or more accurate. With a character that has a 70+ year history, you'll never get accurate because there is no such thing. There are many different interpretations by different writers and artists.

Well said.

 

[Thought Crime]

***

 

[The Joker]

I wanted to join in on your conversation and debate with outriddled, but your replies are so spot on and similar to what I wanted to say, that I don't really feel like I need to anymoret:

Thanks man

 

[OutRiddled]

Nicholson is a good balance between the extremes of Ledger's and Romero's portrayals.

Can you see what I mean? Nicholson balanced the darker aspects and the campy side perfectly.

 

[The Joker]

I don't think so. I never found him to be a very dark or menacing villain. He was very entertaining to watch, but not that dark.

Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin killed people with a venomous kiss, but I didn't find her dark or menacing any more than Nicholson just because he killed people, too.

 

[OutRiddled]

Only a Nolan fanboy would say that the Joker is supposed to be this dark, menacing psychopath. That ignores the entire history of the character.

 

[Snow Queen]

Only a Nolan fanboy would say that the Joker is supposed to be this dark, menacing psychopath. That ignores the entire history of the character.

Not at all. It depends which Joker you read. Death of the Family, Arkham Asylum, The Killing Joke, The Dark Knight Returns, just four examples of a dark, psychotic Joker with a sick sense of humour (much like Heath's).

 

[The Joker]

Only a Nolan fanboy would say that the Joker is supposed to be this dark, menacing psychopath. That ignores the entire history of the character.

Only a Burton fanboy would think I meant he should be 100% dark. Joker should have his camp funny moments, too.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Only a Nolan fanboy would say that the Joker is supposed to be this dark, menacing psychopath.

If you're referring to Heath's Joker, that is an inaccurate description of his performance. He was hilarious in the role. There are some pretty menacing versions of the character in the comics.

 

[OutRiddled]

Only a Burton fanboy would think I meant he should be 100% dark.

I'm not a Burton fanboy. Burton is hit or miss for me. While I love Batman '89, I think Returns got a little too silly.

I like the darker Batman, but Nolan's movies aren't dark at all.

In reality, Heath Ledger's Joker is no more darker than Nicholson's Joker.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not a Burton fanboy. Burton is hit or miss for me. While I love Batman '89, I think Returns got a little too silly.

I like the darker Batman, but Nolan's movies aren't dark at all.

Alright I'll bite. Explain in great detail why they're not dark and how Burton's one is.

In reality, Heath Ledger's Joker is no more darker than Nicholson's Joker.

He's much darker than Nicholson's. For instance that TV broadcast where he terrorizes the copycat Batman was creepier than any scene with Nicholson's Joker.

 

[OutRiddled]

Alright I'll bite. Explain in great detail why they're not dark and how Burton's one is.

'Dark' is subjective, but I compare the tone and look of Batman '89 to Nolan's films. There's nothing really unique in Nolan's trilogy in those terms, it looks and feels like most modern films. The general feel also, grittier and gothic. The look of Anton Furst's Gotham City, etc.

He's much darker than Nicholson's. For instance that TV broadcast where he terrorizes the copycat Batman was creepier than any scene with Nicholson's Joker.

The poor acting of the "copycat Batman" ruined that scene. Yeah, dark, but only if you compare it to a disney film.

Seeing Joker's girlfriend take off her mask to reveal her scarred face was way more ****ed up than anything shown in The Dark Knight.

 

[The Joker]

'Dark' is subjective, but I compare the tone and look of Batman '89 to Nolan's films. There's nothing really unique in Nolan's trilogy in those terms, it looks and feels like most modern films. The general feel also, grittier and gothic. The look of Anton Furst's Gotham City, etc.

So basically you're talking about empty visuals, and not the tone and content of the movie.

I should have guessed.

The poor acting of the "copycat Batman" ruined that scene. Yeah, dark, but only if you compare it to a disney film.

You're not even trying to construct intelligent responses. The copycat Batman was supposed to be an idiot. He was trying to copy Batman wearing some cheap costume. The terror was raw in that scene with Joker sadistically terrorizing him "LOOK AT ME!!!!", and the way that hand held camera he was using moved and sounded only added to it's authenticity like you were watching a real sick video tape.

Seeing Joker's girlfriend take off her mask to reveal her scarred face was way more ****ed up than anything shown in The Dark Knight.

You must be joking. A few little white burns on her face? That was tame. The sight of the mobile phone sewn into the Joker thug's stomach was more disturbing than that lol.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

He's much darker than Nicholson's. For instance that TV broadcast where he terrorizes the copycat Batman was creepier than any scene with Nicholson's Joker.

Lol, now it's me defending Burton's movie but I don't think so. Ledger's Joker seems more creepy because of the serious atmosphere of the movies but most of his action are just the "LOOK, I AM SO CRAZY!!!" thing.

While Nicholson's Joker's action were more, I don't know, casual? He simply killed people without making much fuss out of it.

Ledger was more like the Joker in "The Killing Joke", seemed insecure and tries to justify his action, while Nicholson was more like about the fun and total disregard of life. He also killed a lot more people.

But I must add that the 89 Joker is partially a Black Mask rip-off. The whole cosmetics thing gives it away and Alicia = Circe.

http://about-faces.livejournal.com/31393.html

 

[BatLobster]

Heath's Joker definitely had his "casual" killing moments:

 

[Hellion]

Nicholson is a good balance between the extremes of Ledger's and Romero's portrayals.

Can you see what I mean? Nicholson balanced the darker aspects and the campy side perfectly.

I agree with this, for some reason I was blocked when trying to type it---well something similar, hate it when that happens when writing.

 

[Brain Damage]

Not to mention the bus driver and the cop who walks up to his truck and tells him to move.

 

[The Joker]

Lol, now it's me defending Burton's movie but I don't think so. Ledger's Joker seems more creepy because of the serious atmosphere of the movies

The serious atmosphere of the movies didn't make any of the other Nolan villains nearly as creepy as Joker. Not even Scarecrow. Heath's Joker was naturally menacing and creepy. He made Nicholson look like a boy scout.

but most of his action are just the "LOOK, I AM SO CRAZY!!!" thing.

Which is something the Joker is proud of in the comics and flaunts it.

While Nicholson's Joker's action were more, I don't know, casual? He simply killed people without making much fuss out of it.

He advertised his smilex product on TV. Heath's Joker had plenty of casual moments. The way he casually shoots the bus driver in the bank, the Cop guarding Dent, the traffic Cop outside his truck etc.

Ledger was more like the Joker in "The Killing Joke"

One of the best parts about him.

seemed insecure and tries to justify his action, while Nicholson was more like about the fun and total disregard of life.

Not insecure. Just proving a point. There's a difference.

He also killed a lot more people.

Lets see:

- Grissom
- The two mob guys
- Two models
- TV newscaster
- Six reported deaths on the news (then Batman foils his smilex scheme)
- A few people at the parade (can't have been many because they were all still swarming around his float after Batman took the balloons away, and you don't see any corpses in the street)
- Bob

Heath's Joker killed his henchmen in the bank robbery, Gambol's henchman, Gambol, the Chechen, the copycat Batman, the two "Harvey Dent" Cops, Commissioner Loeb, Judge Surillo, the traffic Cop, X number of Cops in the big chase (Cop cars, helicopter etc), X number of Cops with his fat crazy henchman with the cell phone in his stomach and the two paramedics in the Police Station explosion, Lau, the two Cops guarding Dent in the hospital.

But I must add that the 89 Joker is partially a Black Mask rip-off. The whole cosmetics thing gives it away and Alicia = Circe.

http://about-faces.livejournal.com/31393.html

Yeah, I caught that one, too. Disfiguring girls faces and making them wear masks after was never Joker's thing.

 

[Brain Damage]

Lets see:

- Grissom
- The two mob guys
- Two models
- TV newscaster
- Six reported deaths on the news (then Batman foils his smilex scheme)
- A few people at the parade (can't have been many because they were all still swarming around his float after Batman took the balloons away, and you don't see any corpses in the street)
- Bob

Heath's Joker killed his henchmen in the bank robbery, Gambol's henchman, Gambol, the Chechen, the copycat Batman, the two "Harvey Dent" Cops, Commissioner Loeb, Judge Surillo, the traffic Cop, X number of Cops in the big chase (Cop cars, helicopter etc), X number of Cops, his fat crazy henchman with the cell phone in his stomach, and the two paramedics in the Police Station explosion, Lau, the two Cops guarding Dent in the hospital.

 

[milost]

The dark and creepy thing from Nicholson, for me, was the post-surgery scene and his overall look in certain situations (from the blood smeared paper and whooping aftermath at Grissoms to the mob meeting for example, he looks down right terrifying and sinister with that flesh make up and brimmed hat). The burnt corpse chat is also pretty disturbing as well. Imagine how that must smell and yet he's sticking his face up the charred skull talking to it.


With Ledger, it's got to be the Brian Douglass video, without a doubt. That's pretty creepy as well, especially when it cuts away from the Joker and Douglass and you just hear the shrills in the background. I can just imagine at that point that the Joker is sticking the knife in Douglass' cheeks and going to work on him. I also quite like that shot of him approaching Lau's cell.



After those two examples though, I can't really say Nicholson or Ledger are "OH MY GOD, SO TERRIFYING". They both have this charisma and charm that the Joker SHOULD have that you can't help but love. You should hate these guys, they're the villains, but I for me personally, I can't say I do. I can't really explain it but that attitude is everything. Some of the stuff both of them do should be disturbing, you should be afraid of a deranged, psychotic clown that either wants to give you a disfiguring permanent grin with their toxins or a blade to the mouth. But it's their enthusiasm, humor, lines and glee that balance it out. It sounds like you're saying Ledger was too dark Outriddled, but I think he had more moments of "fun" and "glee" to be honest. The hospital, the interrogation, in the truck. How about the party and eating shrimp? C'mon man! He wasn't all slice, slice, serious creepy.

At first I thought Ledger was going to be "too much" when I read that description that he'd "pick at his own wounds and never take off his rotting make up during the course of the film", but he turned out just fine. I mean, come on, it's not like he's the Brian Azzarello Joker where he's skinning people, raping women and shooting people through their neck.


As for Nicholson. he had the right balance as well, just for a different type of Joker from a different time. We were never going to get something as extreme as Dark Knight Returns or the Killing Joker in a Batman film in the 80s with a PG-13 film. In fact, I'd go as far as saying not even the Ledger Joker has gone that far. They were both the right choice for their respective times and films. Between the two of them, I can't really think of much else anyone would ask for.




Then when it comes to the "kill counts", I'd say both of them were pretty much even. With Joker's list, there's also the poor guy in the Joker's commercial that's dead from smylex (and most likely the gagged hostage later on if we assume the Joker didn't let him go), the other 13 deaths that are mentioned and all those inncoent people in the museum. That's not even counting who he kills as Jack Napier, like Eckhart and Thomas and Martha Wayne. Hell, if we're going to count the deaths of the people Ledger killed inadvertently (with his thugs help), there's also the cops and mafia that get mowed down outside the courthouse.






Between the two of them, I'd say there was PLENTY of killings to make them mass murdering clowns. They certainly weren't the 60s Joker whose worst crime was probably turning UN ambassadors into colored dust.

 

[OutRiddled]

So basically you're talking about empty visuals, and not the tone and content of the movie.

I should have guessed.

I was going to mention the themes but I got tongue-tied. No, Nolan's themes aren't that dark. Dark for a PG-13 movie, maybe. The tone was not striving for darkness. About as dark as Speed, or any other mainstream action/crime thriller. Really, what was so dark? That Joker was terrorising the city? Been done in countless movies. Batman's girlfriend dieing? Was hardly dark at all, in fact I cheered when she died. t: The movie wasn't serious. It may have been a slight reflection of current events like terrorism and The Patriot Act, but even that is pretty much glossed over.

You want to see dark in tone, I suggest go watch The Crow (1994).

You're not even trying to construct intelligent responses. The copycat Batman was supposed to be an idiot. He was trying to copy Batman wearing some cheap costume. The terror was raw in that scene with Joker sadistically terrorizing him "LOOK AT ME!!!!", and the way that hand held camera he was using moved and sounded only added to it's authenticity like you were watching a real sick video tape.

And how is that so different to Joker terrorising Vicki Vale in her apartment? Or Joker talking to a burnt out corpse? In fact, I find those scenes way creepier.

You must be joking. A few little white burns on her face? That was tame. The sight of the mobile phone sewn into the Joker thug's stomach was more disturbing than that lol.

But that was all part of Joker's plan to escape. Him scarring Alicia was just a random thing he did for kicks.

Lets see:

- Grissom
- The two mob guys
- Two models
- TV newscaster
- Six reported deaths on the news (then Batman foils his smilex scheme)
- A few people at the parade (can't have been many because they were all still swarming around his float after Batman took the balloons away, and you don't see any corpses in the street)
- Bob

Plus:

-Eckhardt
-the people in the museum
-Joker's test subject "I get a grin, again and again.."
-Alicia

I'm not sure because it's hard to tally up all the numbers if you want to consider both onscreen and offscreen kills.

Yeah, I caught that one, too. Disfiguring girls faces and making them wear masks after was never Joker's thing.

Neither was wearing facepaint, sporting facial scars and killing people with knives.

The dark and creepy thing from Nicholson, for me, was the post-surgery scene and his overall look in certain situations (from the blood smeared paper and whooping aftermath at Grissoms to the mob meeting for example, he looks down right terrifying and sinister with that flesh make up and brimmed hat). The burnt corpse chat is also pretty disturbing as well. Imagine how that must smell and yet he's sticking his face up the charred skull talking to it.


With Ledger, it's got to be the Brian Douglass video, without a doubt. That's pretty creepy as well, especially when it cuts away from the Joker and Douglass and you just hear the shrills in the background. I can just imagine at that point that the Joker is sticking the knife in Douglass' cheeks and going to work on him. I also quite like that shot of him approaching Lau's cell.



After those two examples though, I can't really say Nicholson or Ledger are "OH MY GOD, SO TERRIFYING". They both have this charisma and charm that the Joker SHOULD have that you can't help but love. You should hate these guys, they're the villains, but I for me personally, I can't say I do. I can't really explain it but that attitude is everything. Some of the stuff both of them do should be disturbing, you should be afraid of a deranged, psychotic clown that either wants to give you a disfiguring permanent grin with their toxins or a blade to the mouth. But it's their enthusiasm, humor, lines and glee that balance it out. It sounds like you're saying Ledger was too dark Outriddled, but I think he had more moments of "fun" and "glee" to be honest. The hospital, the interrogation, in the truck. How about the party and eating shrimp? C'mon man! He wasn't all slice, slice, serious creepy.

At first I thought Ledger was going to be "too much" when I read that description that he'd "pick at his own wounds and never take off his rotting make up during the course of the film", but he turned out just fine. I mean, come on, it's not like he's the Brian Azzarello Joker where he's skinning people, raping women and shooting people through their neck.


As for Nicholson. he had the right balance as well, just for a different type of Joker from a different time. We were never going to get something as extreme as Dark Knight Returns or the Killing Joker in a Batman film in the 80s with a PG-13 film. In fact, I'd go as far as saying not even the Ledger Joker has gone that far. They were both the right choice for their respective times and films. Between the two of them, I can't really think of much else anyone would ask for.




Then when it comes to the "kill counts", I'd say both of them were pretty much even. With Joker's list, there's also the poor guy in the Joker's commercial that's dead from smylex (and most likely the gagged hostage later on if we assume the Joker didn't let him go), the other 13 deaths that are mentioned and all those inncoent people in the museum. That's not even counting who he kills as Jack Napier, like Eckhart and Thomas and Martha Wayne. Hell, if we're going to count the deaths of the people Ledger killed inadvertently (with his thugs help), there's also the cops and mafia that get mowed down outside the courthouse.






Between the two of them, I'd say there was PLENTY of killings to make them mass murdering clowns. They certainly weren't the 60s Joker whose worst crime was probably turning UN ambassadors into colored dust.

Ledger's Joker isn't that dark to me. Yeah, we see him use knives, but it's all offscreen. And there's never any blood.

 

[Snow Queen]

You do realize why there's no blood, right? Because the MPAA and general audiences found the character so terrifying on his own that blood would have made the MPAA give it an R rating.

 

[Human Torch]

As I said before,Hamill's Joker is the only one who truly nailed the Joker to me.

Comparing Jack to Heath is tough,since both got different aspects of the character right.Heath's was better written.Clever and cunning.They got the essence of the Batman/Joker "relationship" right,something Burton's wasn't even close on.("I don't wanna kill you!What would I do without you?")Jack on the other hand,had the showmanship that honestly Heath's was lacking.I prefer a Joker who likes to have fun with victims.(electric joy buzzer,Acid squirting flower,etc)Not an average shmuck that kills with a knife.

In the end,both were good,but Hamill owns them both.